Sažetak
In joined cases eDate Advertising and Olivier Martinez, the CJEU had a chance to interpret the operation of the Brussels I provision on establishing international jurisdiction in non- contractual disputes arising out of violation of personality rights on the Internet. The CJEU held that in the event of an alleged violation of personality rights by means of content placed online, the plaintiff has the option of instituting the proceedings, in respect of all the damage caused, either before the courts of the Member State in which the publisher of that content is established or before the courts of the Member State in which the centre of plaintiff's interests is based, the latter criterion being introduced as a response to ubiquity and severity of violations of the personality rights over the internet. The action for liability can also be brought before the courts of each Member State in the territory of which content placed online is or has been accessible, but only in respect of the damage caused in the territory of that Member State. In the attempt to remain consistent with its decision in Shevill, the CJEU kept the distribution criterion but recognised that it is of little practical value in internet cases. This paper is aimed at examining the scope of this judgement from two perspectives. The focus is first turned on the issue whether the eDate doctrine applies in all cases in which personality rights have been violated online, regardless the mode and consequent ambit of the violation. While it is understandable that online personality violation cases in which the disputed content is universally accessible should follow the principle set in eDate, using the centre of interest criterion for violations that appear in the online environment of limited accessibility, such as closed groups on social networks, might not always seem appropriate. Second aspect of the eDate scope scrutinised in this paper relates to the nature of the defendant. Although this ruling clearly applies if publisher is the defendant, it remains ambiguous whether the same regime is pertinent if the defendant is the internet service provider or perhaps a content creator who places the content online by himself, for example on his blog. In the course of this analysis, the underlying economic and social as well as private interests will be identified. These interests are particular to every stakeholder, namely, the media, internet service providers and readers, as well as individuals whose rights have been violated.